Woodrow Wilson Williams v. Warden L. Massey

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 15, 2008
• Docket: 09-07-00501-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-07-501 CV

WOODROW WILSON WILLIAMS, Appellant

V.

WARDEN L. MASSEY, ET AL., Appellees

On Appeal from the 411th District Court

Polk County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CIV23,797

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Pro se appellant Woodrow Wilson Williams, an inmate, sued Warden L. Massey and numerous other defendants for alleged due process violations. Williams filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Before the defendants were served, the trial court sua sponte dismissed the case without prejudice pursuant to chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.001-14.014 (Vernon 2002). In its order dismissing the case, the trial court found that Williams failed to fully describe each previous suit by: failing to state the operative facts for which relief was sought; failing to identify each party named in a previous suit; failing to state the result of a previous suit; and failing to state the date of the final orders affirming the dismissals if a previous suit was dismissed as frivolous or malicious. The trial court then determined that Williams's claims were frivolous and dismissed them without prejudice pursuant to § 14.003(b)(4) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(b)(4) (Vernon 2002). Williams filed this appeal, in which he raises five issues for our consideration. We affirm.

In issue one, Williams argues that the trial court erred "in dismissing [the] suit entirely." In issue two, Williams asserts the trial court should have granted his motion to amend. Williams contends in issue three that his lawsuit was not legally frivolous. In issue four, Williams asserts that the trial court abused its discretion. Finally, in issue five, Williams asserts that the trial court erred by dismissing the case despite the existence of disputed factual issues.

We review a trial court's dismissal of an inmate's claims under Chapter 14 for an abuse of discretion. Hickson v. Moya, 926 S.W.2d 397, 398 (Tex. App.--Waco 1996, no writ); see Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003. Section 14.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides as follows, in pertinent part:

(a) A court may dismiss a claim, either before or after service of process, if the court finds that:

. . . .

(2) the claim is frivolous or malicious. . . .

(b) In determining whether a claim is frivolous or malicious, the court may consider whether:

(4) the claim is substantially similar to a previous claim filed by the inmate because the claim arises from the same operative facts.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(a)(2), (b)(4). In addition, § 14.004 provides as follows, in pertinent part:

(a) An inmate who files an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs shall file a separate affidavit or declaration:

(1) identifying each suit, other than a suit under the Family Code, previously brought by the person and in which the person was not represented by an attorney, without regard to whether the person was an inmate at the time the suit was brought; and

(2) describing each suit that was previously brought by:

(A) stating the operative facts for which relief was sought;

(B) listing the case name, cause number, and the court in which the suit was brought;

(C) identifying each party named in the suit; and

(D) stating the result of the suit, including whether the suit was dismissed as frivolous or malicious under Section 13.001 or Section 14.003 or otherwise.

(b) If the affidavit or unsworn declaration filed under this section states that a previous suit was dismissed as frivolous or malicious, the affidavit or unsworn declaration must state the date of the final order affirming the dismissal.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.004(a), (b).

Williams filed three affidavits with the trial court, in which he discussed the details of three prior lawsuits he had filed pro se in state court. However, Williams's petition also listed eleven prior lawsuits he had filed in federal court, and for those cases, his petition provided only the style, cause numbers, filing dates, and dates the lawsuits were concluded. Williams did not file an affidavit that set forth any additional details concerning the eleven prior lawsuits he filed in federal court. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining that Williams's affidavits of prior filings did not comply with the requirements of § 14.004. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.004. When an inmate's affidavit provides insufficient information regarding previous filings because it does not meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 14, the trial court is entitled to assume that previous suits were substantially similar to previous claims and were frivolous. Hall v. Treon, 39 S.W.3d 722, 724 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2001, no pet.); Clark v. J.W. Estelle Unit, 23 S.W.3d 420, 422 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied). Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by finding Williams's case to be frivolous and dismissing it pursuant to § 14.003(b)(4). See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003(b)(4). We overrule issues one, three, and four.

The trial court dismissed Williams's case without prejudice. Therefore, the trial court was not required to permit Williams to amend his pleadings to cure the defects, since Williams could simply re-file his lawsuit. Compare Hughes v. Massey, 65 S.W.3d 743, 746 (Tex. App.--Beaumont 2001, no pet.) ("A dismissal for failure to comply with the rules governing the filing of in forma pauperis suits is not a ruling on the merits; accordingly, it is error to dismiss the suit with prejudice if the inmate was not first provided with an opportunity to amend his pleadings."). We overrule issue two.

In his fifth issue, Williams argues that the trial court erred by dismissing the case despite the existence of disputed factual issues. As discussed above, a dismissal for failure to comply with the rules is not a ruling on the merits. See id. Therefore, the alleged existence of disputed factual issues is not relevant to the trial court's determination of whether Williams complied with the requirements of Chapter 14 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See generally id.; see also generally Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 14.001-14.014. We overrule issue five and affirm the trial court's judgment.

AFFIRMED.

STEVE McKEITHEN

Chief Justice

Submitted on April 17, 2008

Opinion Delivered May 15, 2008

Before McKeithen, C.J., Gaultney and Horton, JJ.